Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

 

Poll

Question: How fucked up do you think this wealth inequality in the US is?

Options:

So much so that there are no words

Kind of messed up

Meh

Not so bad

I think it's perfect

Other, including "i'm ready for shit to hit the fan", "I don't care what's going on in the world around me", "what?", and whatever else.


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 128

View Results

Well, I'm a dirty socialist/anarchist/communal-tribal-small-scale-utopiast, so I obviously think this is fucked. 


What do you think?

by on Mar. 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM
Replies (331-340):
smalltowngal
by Platinum Member on Mar. 10, 2013 at 2:04 PM
1 mom liked this

 

 

Quoting 12hellokitty:

 

 

Quoting smalltowngal:

 

 

Quoting 12hellokitty:

 

 

Quoting smalltowngal:


Just curious. At what point do you think wealth inequality is unhealthy? I think everyone could agree that the top .1% shouldn't be holding 99% of the wealth. I don't know completely where it becomes unhealthy. I am getting a little nervous on how wealth transfer has seemed to pick up since the Great Recession. Even though I benefit from the stock market going up, I know a lot out there don't.

Usually after a recession/depression, wealth equality comes in line more and from all the data I've seen, it seems to have gotten worse. I blame a lot on the Fed and all their tinkering.

 

Why not?  I recall you said you don't work and your husband was going to retire at 38?  Do you think just because you have not achieved the success of those in the top .1% that you should be free from sacrifice?  Or do you think you are entitled to not work and your husband is entitled to retire at 38?

 


No, I don't feel entitled. I feel pretty lucky. I've said before that I don't have a problem with people being wealthy. I just don't like the wars, depressions and corruption that seems to happen during periods of large wealth inequality. That fear is a big reason why I'm so concerned with being self-sufficient and encouraging others to do the same. That's also a big reason why my husband will be able to retire so young. We produce a lot of our own food, electricity and water. I suppose he could work longer and we could eventually join the top 1% but we really don't have a huge desire to. We both would rather him be more available around the house. 

Oh, I don't want to see things that extreme because I don't like idea of people starving. During the Irish potato famine, there was plenty of potatoes to feed the population but they were shipped to other countries for money. 

I wasn't suggesting to work longer to become a part of the 1%, but so that you can help all those people starving. 

 


That's why I want to get even more involved in food programs. I think often you can do more help by getting involved than just throwing money at a problem. I've posted on here before that my dream is to create an aquaponics center for my community so people could have a cheap/free healthy source of seafood, vegetables and fruit.  I know I could grow/raise more food in 40 hours than I could buy. When my husband semi-retires, he will be able to help more around the homestead. We just have chickens ducks right now but will probably expand to goats and pigs. I wouldn't mind expanding our orchard too. I think fish is probably the best way to go for producing the most food/calories for the least amount of work. 

Plus, I think it's really important to teach people self-suffciency and not being so dependant on the system. If there are cuts to welfare benefits or we see higher inflation for money printing, people are going to have to figure out how they will eat. 

 

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Mar. 10, 2013 at 2:14 PM
Quoting 12hellokitty:

Perhaps you need to refresh me on the Atheist definition of right and wrong...

There isn't one.  There are many.   Though admittedly, most of them are very similar in what they advocate in most situations, if not in formulation.

For example, some Secular Humanists go with the “common moral decencies”—qualities such as integrity, trustworthiness, benevolence, and fairness.

Other, such as the Precedent Utilitarians, believe that when a person compares possible actions in a specific situation, the comparative merit of each action is most accurately approximated by estimating the net probable gain in utility for all concerned from the consequences of the action, taking into account both the precedent set by the action, and the risk or uncertainty due to imperfect information.

According to eudaimonists, the good life is the life characteristically lived by someone who is good qua human being, and the virtues enable their possessor to live such a life because the virtues just are those character traits that make their possessor good qua human being (an excellent specimen of her kind.

Kant held that to act in the morally right way one must act purely from duty and that nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.  (Good will he defined as 'acting out of respect for the moral law'.)  The moral law he was thinking of was his categorical imperative : Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.

survivorinohio
by René on Mar. 10, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Way to put words in my mouth.

What I will say is 'The things they think are precious I cant understand'.

Quoting talia-mom:

He can't be paid what people aren't willing to pay.

But I am glad you think he needs to pay 51% of what he earns because you have determined he makes too much.   Just remember, people can say the same thing about the money you earn.


Quoting survivorinohio:

Quoting talia-mom:

Yes.

Doesn't change what I think.

My family has busted their ass for what they have and I hate this idea that somehow it isn't fair that others have more.  Yes, many, many people have used the system and their access to get favorable tax laws or treatment.

But taking from others to give others more is never a good thing.


I posted a thread about a football player that will have to pay 51% of his salary in federal, state, and local taxes alone.   No one posted on it.   It is wrong to take over 50% of what he earns in order to make things more equal.


Quoting krysstizzle:

Did you watch the video?

Quoting talia-mom:

PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE!   YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT WHEN OTHERS CAN'T!



Quoting furbabymum:

 Well my DH and I are working hard toward our first million so I hope people don't think I'm a shit head for working hard and saving.






I would submit that its ludicrous for the football player to earn what he does to begin with.




How far you go in life depends on your being: tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of both the weak and strong.  Because someday in life you would have been one or all of these.  GeorgeWashingtonCarver


stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Mar. 10, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Nice.

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting 12hellokitty:

Perhaps you need to refresh me on the Atheist definition of right and wrong...

There isn't one.  There are many.   Though admittedly, most of them are very similar in what they advocate in most situations, if not in formulation.

For example, some Secular Humanists go with the “common moral decencies”—qualities such as integrity, trustworthiness, benevolence, and fairness.

Other, such as the Precedent Utilitarians, believe that when a person compares possible actions in a specific situation, the comparative merit of each action is most accurately approximated by estimating the net probable gain in utility for all concerned from the consequences of the action, taking into account both the precedent set by the action, and the risk or uncertainty due to imperfect information.

According to eudaimonists, the good life is the life characteristically lived by someone who is good qua human being, and the virtues enable their possessor to live such a life because the virtues just are those character traits that make their possessor good qua human being (an excellent specimen of her kind.

Kant held that to act in the morally right way one must act purely from duty and that nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.  (Good will he defined as 'acting out of respect for the moral law'.)  The moral law he was thinking of was his categorical imperative : Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.


talia-mom
by Gold Member on Mar. 10, 2013 at 4:26 PM


Sure.  You couldn't respond other than to say he makes too much.   Just remember, some may think you make too much and need to pay 51% because it isn't fair you make so much.


Quoting survivorinohio:

Way to put words in my mouth.

What I will say is 'The things they think are precious I cant understand'.

Quoting talia-mom:

He can't be paid what people aren't willing to pay.

But I am glad you think he needs to pay 51% of what he earns because you have determined he makes too much.   Just remember, people can say the same thing about the money you earn.


Quoting survivorinohio:

Quoting talia-mom:

Yes.

Doesn't change what I think.

My family has busted their ass for what they have and I hate this idea that somehow it isn't fair that others have more.  Yes, many, many people have used the system and their access to get favorable tax laws or treatment.

But taking from others to give others more is never a good thing.


I posted a thread about a football player that will have to pay 51% of his salary in federal, state, and local taxes alone.   No one posted on it.   It is wrong to take over 50% of what he earns in order to make things more equal.


Quoting krysstizzle:

Did you watch the video?

Quoting talia-mom:

PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE!   YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT WHEN OTHERS CAN'T!



Quoting furbabymum:

 Well my DH and I are working hard toward our first million so I hope people don't think I'm a shit head for working hard and saving.






I would submit that its ludicrous for the football player to earn what he does to begin with.






mama3814
by Member on Mar. 11, 2013 at 12:22 AM

 I recently watched a documentary about the Koch brothers on Hulu. It covered this exact topic.

Quoting meriana:

The problem with great wealth inequality is that the more the wealth is concentrated among a very few, the greater the likelyhood that those few will change, pass laws that favor them to the detriment of a population as a whole. Great wealth tends to go hand in hand with power and a tendency to do what one can to continually increase that wealth and power.  

 

meriana
by Platinum Member on Mar. 11, 2013 at 9:54 AM
2 moms liked this

Quoting mama3814:

 I recently watched a documentary about the Koch brothers on Hulu. It covered this exact topic.

Quoting meriana:

The problem with great wealth inequality is that the more the wealth is concentrated among a very few, the greater the likelyhood that those few will change, pass laws that favor them to the detriment of a population as a whole. Great wealth tends to go hand in hand with power and a tendency to do what one can to continually increase that wealth and power.  

 


That must have been quite interesting. The tax arguments always seem to be based on the tax rate. The corporations and extremely wealthy have for years loudly complained about the high tax rate and how it's the reason they don't hire, pay better wages, etc. and people have heard it for so long, many believe it. Of course these corporations and the extremely wealthy don't mention all the legal loopholes, deductions, etc. that often not only allow them to zero out their tax liability, they end up with refunds, devulging that information would be counter-productive to their purpose to keep people keyed on the rate rather than what is actually paid. People are against what they term "wealth redistribution" but they don't really blink an eye when lawmakers propose to eliminate things from the bottom while maintaining the status quo at the very top. Taking from the bottom while leaving the very top alone, IS wealth redistribution, from the bottom to the top.
Sisteract
by Whoopie on Mar. 11, 2013 at 11:11 AM
1 mom liked this

Which if you look at compensation (wages) for the last 35 years, is exactly what has happened. Middle and lower income workers' salaries have remained flat as compared to those more highly compensated employees.

In terms of taxes, the only rate that counts is the one that is actually paid.

I hate when the "wealthy" speak as if ordinary workers are stupid-

Quoting meriana:


Quoting mama3814:

 I recently watched a documentary about the Koch brothers on Hulu. It covered this exact topic.

Quoting meriana:

The problem with great wealth inequality is that the more the wealth is concentrated among a very few, the greater the likelyhood that those few will change, pass laws that favor them to the detriment of a population as a whole. Great wealth tends to go hand in hand with power and a tendency to do what one can to continually increase that wealth and power.  

 


That must have been quite interesting. The tax arguments always seem to be based on the tax rate. The corporations and extremely wealthy have for years loudly complained about the high tax rate and how it's the reason they don't hire, pay better wages, etc. and people have heard it for so long, many believe it. Of course these corporations and the extremely wealthy don't mention all the legal loopholes, deductions, etc. that often not only allow them to zero out their tax liability, they end up with refunds, devulging that information would be counter-productive to their purpose to keep people keyed on the rate rather than what is actually paid. People are against what they term "wealth redistribution" but they don't really blink an eye when lawmakers propose to eliminate things from the bottom while maintaining the status quo at the very top. Taking from the bottom while leaving the very top alone, IS wealth redistribution, from the bottom to the top.


Donna6503
by Platinum Member on Mar. 11, 2013 at 11:13 AM
1 mom liked this
I'm not so much worried about wealth inequity .... As much as I'm worried about power inequity.

Lets face it; if you have power, money isn't a issue.

When two schools in the same school districts has the same basic budget, but the school in the better neighborhood is the better school ... It all based on the fact the better neighborhood has more power and uses it to their political advantage.

We see how power inequity causes problems in the justice system, with political lobbies, etc.

If you want to solve the wealth inequity in this country; solve the political inequity first.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Sisteract
by Whoopie on Mar. 11, 2013 at 11:20 AM
2 moms liked this

In corrupt countries, the only people with money, tend to be those in power- We are headed to that status. I agree, why should elections be bought? Super Pacs, what a joke. Who in their right mind (other than the Sheldon Adelson's of the world) would think that Super Pacs were good for our political system?

The 6 Waltons have as much accumulated wealth as the bottom 40% of Americans- they also have one of the strongest lobby representation in DC- DUH!

Quoting Donna6503:

I'm not so much worried about wealth inequity .... As much as I'm worried about power inequity.

Lets face it; if you have power, money isn't a issue.

When two schools in the same school districts has the same basic budget, but the school in the better neighborhood is the better school ... It all based on the fact the better neighborhood has more power and uses it to their political advantage.

We see how power inequity causes problems in the justice system, with political lobbies, etc.

If you want to solve the wealth inequity in this country; solve the political inequity first.


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN